Monday, April 25, 2016

NH: Governor Hassan Promises another Veto for Consitutional Carry

In New Hampshire, Democrat Governor Maggie Hassan has promised to veto a near identical bill to the "Constitutional" carry bill that she vetoed last year.  The measure  is proving popular this year, with three more states being added to "Constitutional" carry club. From
CONCORD — Voting along party lines, the Senate Thursday repealed the requirement to obtain a concealed weapons permit, although the governor says she will veto the bill as she did last year.

House Bill 582 would allow anyone who can legally own a gun to conceal a loaded weapon.

Under current law, a person may carry a loaded weapon that is visible, but a permit is required to carry it concealed.

West Virginia, Maine and Idaho increased the number of "Constitutional" or permitless carry states to 10 this year.  Nine have restored the right to carry a concealed weapon to the status that existed when the Bill of Rights was ratified on 15 December, 1791.  Vermont has always had permitless carry, and has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. 

New Hampshire is now surrounded by states that have restored the right.  New Hampshire's requirement for a carry permit was passed about a hundred years ago as "progressive" ideas swept the nation.  Those laws are being repealed as evidence accumulates that they did more harm than good.  Opponents say that they are an infringement on Second Amendment rights.  The New Hampshire Senate passed HB 582 14 to 10, along party lines.  The bill passed the House in January, 206 to 146.  Republicans voted for the bill, Democrats against.

With a promised veto, it seems unlikely that New Hampshire will reach "Constitutional" carry status this year.  A Republican governor may be required to accomplish that.  And that may be exactly what the legislature is pointing out.

There is no evidence that permitless carry leads to higher crime levels; there have been some studies that claim a statistically significant drop in violent crimes.  Overall, the change in crime rates is small.  "Progressives" appear to oppose the bill on the principle that government power should not be limited; conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists approve of it because it shows that the Constitution can and should limit government power.

Those that trust the government are against the measure; those that trust the people are for it.

Trust in the people is on the rise; trust in the government is at record lows.

Vermont, plus the nine states that have restored "Constitutional" carry now make up 20% of all the states in the Union.  They are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  They extend from the Pacific to the Atlantic, and from the Canadian border to the Mexican.   They outnumber the states that cling to the outdated notion of "may issue" concealed carry permits. 

A number of other states have "Constitutional" or permitless carry legislation in the works.  Their number could pass majority status in a few years.

 ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I have mentioned the one point made in this article before about the supreme courts ruling concerning the duties of police officers not being required to protect the public. Many police agencies have on the doors of their patrol cars " to protect and to Serve" The court ruled it is not their duty to protect. their duty is to investigate and solve crime and bring the guilty to justice, that is how they serve. the problem is too many police agencies believe they can do anything they please to garner a conviction. It is the governments responsibility to prove you are guilty without forcing anyone to testify against themselves. this is the reason the 4th and 5th amendments exist You are to be secure in your home and in your papers and effects, you can not be forced to answer their questions at any time or in any place. Most police agencies will get search warrants to search your home and by the 4th and 5th amendments you do not have to let them enter your home to get evidence against you. you do not have to answer any questions, even at a traffic stop. If an officer I not an eye witness to a crime he has no justifiable grounds to hold you until there is a completed investigation. This is why speed trap cameras are not legal evidence. You may have been caught on camera but you were not witnessed by a human eye.
One person beat a speeding ticket when the manufacturer of the device used sent a technician to court to certify the calibration of the equipment used. He demonstrated the calibration in the court. then the device was taken to a window in the court room and a random car passing the court was checked. to show how it worked. then he asked the technician to check the judges bench expecting for it to read zero it clocked the judges bench at 55 mph in the court room. Many warrants are unconstitutional by nature. Until you have had a chance to read the warrant it is not serve and the police can not proceed until you comply with it or agree to let them search. If the warrant is not correct for any reason it is not a valid warrant. the public needs to know when the police are overstepping their authority. In American law, any recognized church can not be entered by police in an official capacity. A church is the same as a sanctuary city of old. You can not be legally removed from a church and no documents of the church can be seized. How many of these kinds of violations have we seen in the last several years? WACO?
I continually write about basic law, that is what our constitution is based on, a limitation of government authority. Biased judges and corruption at every level of government. If you let them exercise power they have never had that is your fault. Bad laws are uncovered everyday. We have well over two centuries of corruption in government in this country, Of late the tide is turning, corruption is being exposed. people are beginning to understand the responsibility of being a citizen and question the actions of government. Just because the government says it has the power or demand using the power does not mean that power is legal or constitutional. If you are guilty they have to prove it without any kind of help from you. If you are innocent What can they prove? that is when you have to start to worry. Manufactured evidence or manipulated evidence is a serious threat to freedom.